Slashdot Mirror
Nokia Urges Linux Developers To Be Cool With DRM
superglaze writes in to note that according to Nokia's software chief, its plans for open source include getting developers to accept things like DRM, commercial IP rights, and SIM locks. "Jaaksi admitted that concepts like these 'go against the open-source philosophy,' but said they were necessary components of the current mobile industry. 'Why do we need closed vehicles? We do,' he said. 'Some of these things harm the industry but they're here [as things stand]. These are touchy, emotional issues, but this dialogue is very much needed. As an industry, we plan to use open-source technologies, but we are not yet ready to play by the rules; but this needs to work the other way round too.'"
well thats the wonder of the GPL, we can just take the most current version of QT and FORK.
They're still held by the Free Qt deal. If they stop releasing OSS versions of Qt, it's forcefully taken from them.
"I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
Ari Jaaksi blogs at jaaksi.blogspot.com, if you want to directly talk to him.
Google knows all. KDE Free Qt Foundation
I hadn't heard of it before, either. Now I'm wondering: what additional power does this agreement give them? Presumably everyone already has the right to fork Qt.
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
Except people did consider this possibility and Trolltech signed an agreement specifically covering what would happen if they stopped releasing improvements to QT, specifically including cases where they had been acquired by another company. Basically they're bound to release it under the BSD license at that point, so we have a start for a fork just as good as what you mention.
Without having worked on either X or QT, I would guess that QT is ALOT more accessible to get into than X. Look at the amount of different UI toolkits is around. Sure, most of them is far from the quality of QT but it's a sign that doing work on the level of QT seems to appeal to quite a lot of people.
But software that is comparable to X is very scarce, which indicates that THAT kind of software just isn't "funny" to do.
If Nokia ever would try to play hardball, I think a community supported version of QT would do just fine - KDE developers would most likely just pick it up, and if noone really wanted to maintain QT, it would simply die and we'd all use GTK instead.
So - I really don't see the same problem as with X.org here.
It's a licensing thing, mostly.
Under the agreement, if Trolltech (now Nokia) stop releasing GPL-licensed versions of the Qt library for a period of time, for any reason, the last GPL-licensed release is to be relicensed under a BSD-style license.
In other words, the last GPL-licensed release of Qt will become free for any use, including use in commercial, closed-source software.
With the current GPL / QPL / commercial licensing arrangement, any software developed with Qt either has to be free and open source, or you're required to pay for a commercial license. A fork based on the current Qt would still have that restriction.
Second, attempts at implementing DRM are a _terrible_ thing -- because they are just attempts to prevent honest people from exercising their fair use rights, and lock people on carriers, distributors, or platforms. Nothing else. Forget the 'piracy!' screams, it just translates to 'the consumer wants to buy a CD and listen to the same music on his iPod without paying another fee for it' or 'the consumer wants to watch the movie on this DVD... but after, he wants to lend it to a friend, that will watch it and we will not receive any money for it'. Why can't I use DRM to protect and maintain a durable finely gained control of how my data is used and by whom? Answer: because it's mathematically impossible. What's the end you want? One that draws your foes into a collabrative fold, or one that keeps you unnecessarily at odds depriving everyone of more choice, more ability? I, personally, don't care if they try to implement DRM schemes... as long as the Free Software they are using to leverage their problem remains Free. The case, here, is that they want to use software developed by thousands of people against the license that those same people freed their software. The issue is the same: DRMers want to be in control of what people do with their own things.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048